Synopsis Set in the early 1980s within a New Mexico town, Owen (Smit-McPhee) who is a bullied young boy befriends Abby (Moretz), a vampire living in secrecy with her guardian (Jenkins).

Review When it comes to the arrival of remakes based on recent foreign work, your response will mostly be a moan, although if you are to see the English-language translation, you must go in with an open mind because you might expect a masterpiece or a disappointment (for many, it will be the latter).

Going in with an open mind is what this critic exactly did when it came to the remake of Let the Right One In, a Swedish vampire movie so moving that it ended up being my best film of 2009. Based on the epic novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist who also wrote the screenplay, director Tomas Alfredson wonderfully turn this first adaptation into a bleak but subtle drama exploring the dark territories of childhood (with the addition of vampires).

Having watched the original so many times, the early announcements of an American remake being developed were one of low expectations. Previously directed Cloverfield, Matt Reeves has expressed his passion towards Lindqvistís story told both in page and screen, and when first approaching, he didnít want to make unnecessary changes to harm the tale. So, it looks like we are in good hands, particularly casting Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz as the leads.

For those who have seen the original, you watch this and go, ďWhy isnít this working?Ē The simple answer is this: despite being a fan of the original, Reeves mostly does scenes that are shot-by-shot translated, but amped everything up to eleven, particularly the horror sequences. Its biggest problem is that it lacks the subtlety of Let the Right One In as CGI was rarely used and there werenít buckets of blood. Let Me In does the opposite as the vampiric attacks uses ropey visual effects and blood is being spewed out.

However, this is not a terrible translation as Matt Reeves shows he can do horror which will satisfy a non-horror crowd (I know because two women up front screamed a lot), but not to sound like a show-off, I didnít jump BECAUSE IíVE SEEN THE ORIGINAL! Despite the substantial changes and Reevesí slick direction, you may have seen a lot of it before.

Having seen them in top form from The Road and Kick-Ass, Smit-McPhee and Moretz are the best thing in Let Me In as they have a lovely chemistry on both a dramatic level and a charming kiddy way. However, despite their fine talent, they are not in par with the original stars who were unknowns that gave extraordinary performances. Another mention is Richard Jenkins as the mysterious guardian who has a humble screen presence which turns into sinister.

Verdict Lacking the depth of the original, this is a brave attempt at translating the story into an American piece but ultimately fails. It may be a crowd-pleaser, but whereís the innocence?

For no reason in particular, it took me a while to get to see Let The Right One In, in fact it wasn't until about a year and a half after it's release that I finally got to view it. I found a film entirely worthy of the great praise it was getting, both a touching coming of age story and the most interesting take on the vampire in a long long time. Therefore I was most disappointed to hear that bloody Hollywood had decided to remake it so soon after it had been released, and surely they would cock it up? Let The Right One In was a film of unique subtlety, of a very European kind, and of a kind that Hollywood is not usually good at doing. Matt Reeves set himself a huge task with adapting the film and trying to match it. Did he succeed? Well, with a surprising number of good reviews for a remake of a much like non-English language film, and a lot of good word of mouth, I wasn't really surprised to find that Le Me In is also a good movie, a film that does no disgrace to the original and in some ways works even better.

However, there's a big downside. It's almost the same bloody movie! I made the mistake of viewing the first film a couple of nights ago again and honestly it was almost a case of deja vu watching this one. Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with a remake that stays close to it's predecessor, but Let Me In is virtually a scene for scene copy. Some scenes are relocated or restructured, but some have almost exactly the same staging and even some of the same dialogue. No doubt it was thought this was the best thing to do, and this illustrates why remakes can't really win-they're criticised for being lazy and pointless if they stay too close to the original but if they deviate too much folks say that it's a travesty and insults the other film and may as well be called something else. Quite a few scenes in Let Me In are unsurprisingly not quite as good as their counterparts in Let The Right One In, but a few do actually improve upon them, such as a burning and a murder in a subway. I was led to believe that Let Me In totally avoided the low key tone and style of Let The Right In, but I wouldn't say that's the case. Yes, certain 'horror 'aspects are increased a little, such as Micheal Giacchino's thumping score, but not really that much. Take for example the previously mentioned subway killing. Yes, you now see a very uncanny CG Abby jumping around on the victim's neck, but the scene is brief and still done mostly in silhouette. And anyway, why is a more overt approach automatically considered inferior to a subtle approach? They're both valid. There's plenty about Le Me In that remains understated anyway.

Visually, Let Me In is a little more colourful, with great use of yellow and brown, and in terms of film grammar, Matt Reeves does undoubtably differ from Thomas Alfredson. Alfredson films much of his movie in painterly master shots, with much emphasis on his character's surroundings and slow camera movements. This has a distancing effect, with the film seeming almost as chilly as the snow in which most of the events take place, and as if we were witnessing a dark fairytale being re-enacted. Reeves uses far more close-ups [and yes, sadly a few attack scenes do suffer from the obligatory spastic editing syndrome!] and point of view shots, drawing us into the story more. This helps ensure that the central relationship comes across as being more sentimental and almost romantic, despite the script being almost the same. I actually felt more emotionally involved with the tale as presented here even if it was more typically 'Hollywood'. The only major noteworthy script differences though are the addition of a pointless cop character, a slight change in the role of The Father [which does work], and the total removal of a homosexual element, including a surprising discovery about the gender of one of the main characters, which I'm told is much more explicit in the original novel. It's not really missed here, but did give an interesting dimension to the original movie.

If anyone reading this hasn't actually seen Let The Right One In, then Let Me In is definitely worth a watch. I actually have a feeling that if you see Let Me In before Let The Right One In, you stand a good chance of preferring it. It tells the same story just as well and although maybe Kodi Smith-McPhee and Chloe Moritz aren't quite as strong as their predecessors [strange after Moritz's barnstorming turn in Kick Ass], generally any aspects that are not done as effectively are balanced by things that are or better. It's just that, as good as it is, I had a bit of a problem with it being as close to Let The Right One In as it was. I haven't read the novel, but it seems like there are things unused in the first version which were almost crying out to be used in the second version and would have made it more of it's own film. I had trouble rating this movie out of ten. Let The Right One in is a nine out of ten film in my opinion, Let Me In is maybe as good and maybe, dare I say it, just ever so slightly better, so maybe a nine on it's own, however it's just not different enough for me, therefore 8/10

Thsi si clearly a money making exercise, to get those who wouldnt see a subtitled film (perticularly in the US) to see the film. Its lazy film making. However, it IS very good remake, but I just dont see the point. This would have been a perfect opportunity for the director to add some of the books missing scenes (ie: the fact that the girl was once a boy!) to make it more interesting, but they didnt bother.

I could go on and on about the genius and originality of Let The Right One In (yes, I know it was an adapted work itself). I could flex my vocabulary in all the right places to say how hauntingly beautiful the story of Oskar and Eli is. I could go on endlessly about the cinematography, the heartbreakingly tender score and the subtlety of the narrative, but, what would be the point.

This is a game of opinions only and in the opinion of those who like Let Me In, all that I have to say about Let The Right One In would be construed as hyperbole. But, in my opinion, if you watch both films and you genuinely choose Let Me In as your favourite then, my friend, you have missed the point of the story that was being told.

On it's own merits, if Let The Right One In didn't exist, yeah it may be entertaining, it might have a certain beauty of it's own even, but the problem is that Let The Right One In does exist and to remake it is the equivalent of me remaking E.T. setting it in Glasgow, spending a fortune on CGI effects to show spaceships, alien hordes and and interstellar war and then tapping on subtitles in the very best Microsoft (American) English, so that the original film-makers can understand the travesty I had made of their perfect original.

Good film. If I hadn't of seen the original I would have enjoyed this a whole lot more, yet on the whole the film makers did a good job of making it a American folktale. Overall a decent take on the story. Just to be offensive I proberly prefer this as I don't have to read subtitles.

I was tempted to watch this remake, but I loved the original so much I don't want this one to take it's place in my memory. I watch a lot of Scandinavian drama these days; Wallander, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Killing being the most recent, and I find them to be beautifully produced; very atmospheric in a 'less is more' sort of way.. I may watch the remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but only because the second and third films in the trilogy were a bit of a let down. I was mesmerised right from the beginning when I saw Let the Right One In, and can still sense the monochrome stillness of it [the way the world is so much quieter when it has been snowing!]. I don't want colour..I want to remember it in black and white!

Am astounded at the first review on the site - someone who has never even seen it gives it two stars. Mystifying. I haven't seen the first one but this is a good movie, a touching love story with a little gore. It's dark but uplifting despite the horror elements and the two child actors put in mesmerising performances. I don't care its a re-make of a Swedish film, I judged it on its own merits and it is praiseworthy indeed. Excellent.

After being blown away by the original Let the Right one in, I really didnt want to see this, but I thought why not, so I watched it, and, predictably maybe, I was dissapointed. The film was basically a shot-for-shot remake, but it missed out some of themost beautiful shots (the touching scene when Owen asks Abby 'are you a vampire?' is shot as a stright out conversation, and the opening credits that chill you without even a single drop of blood) and most of the relationships between the townsfolk are non-existant. There is no tension here, nothing deep or meaningful, also, though Chloe Mortez proved she can play badass crimefighter in Kick Ass, in Let Me In, she is good, but less innocently frightening than the Eli of the original film.

It's a fairly believable story of forbidden love, but there is none of the gritty reality of the Stockholm suburbs of the original... and why oh why does Hollywood simply HAVE to demonstrate that they can, in fact, make a vampire look a bit scary, surely the sight of a young girl drinking blood from a corpse is more shocking than a typical 'vampire'?

Cons: lens flare glossy Michael Giacchino's score - beautiful but misplacedtoo close to the original film - not an adaption, but instead a remake Richard Jenkins might has well have slept throughout the entire production Chloe Moretz - miscast; no chemistry between Kodi; saw her acting - literally

Final feelings: well made but ultimately forgettable and empty. In its attempt to pay homage to its precedence, it also tries hard to be original in which it fails. Watch LTROI instead.

It's extremely bizarre-watching a Matt Reeves movie after watching years of 'Cloverfield'. It's also strange, watching my new favourite director, who directed my favourite movie, directing a remake to my favourite movie, which is now-gulp-my new favourite movie. It's like Reeves made this film especially for ME! What I LOVED about this movie was, the David Fincher esque style that this movie had, it's sense of originality, but it's awareness of a remake. (You can tell, because of it's relatively fast american pace.) You were also far more connected with the lead character Owen, and his fascination for Abby, which really helped a better flowing story, instead of a young girl with the face of a 40 year old, who wears cardigans, but no shoes...? I also appreciated the new vision- the film was totally on it's own, and not shot-for-shot. It was amazing, seeing the oppurtunity shots that the original had missed. There was also an appropriate taste, instead of a relatively lifeless, colourless movie, there's a shak-under-the-bridge feel. There were also really clever and intimate moments, instead of a boy and a girl on the jungle gym, there was close calls, and less peverted (that moment where Oskar see's Eli's 'bits' in the original). Abby is much more bearable to watch than Eli, visually and verbally, but there was a wisdom and a sense of age that Eli had, that 'Abby' hadn't, which was a little annoying, but bearable again in the sense of it's own originality. It was more appropriate, too, instead of a 140-year-old-woman-inside-a-girls-body looking after a taunted, bullied young lad. I'm tied between Oskar and Owen, although Owen spoke english, but Oskar was cuter and more innocent. Chemistry was there, but not the centre of the film like it's predessecor. The story also made far more sense, unlike the confusing Swedish take. Unlike Jocke's friend who some-how discovered how Eli was a vampire and where she lived, we follow Koteas throughout the film, thus, more

It's extremely bizarre-watching a Matt Reeves movie after watching years of 'Cloverfield'. It's also strange, watching my new favourite director, who directed my favourite movie, directing a remake to my favourite movie, which is now-gulp-my new favourite movie. It's like Reeves made this film especially for ME! What I LOVED about this movie was, the David Fincher esque style that this movie had, it's sense of originality, but it's awareness of a remake. (You can tell, because of it's relatively fast american pace.) You were also far more connected with the lead character Owen, and his fascination for Abby, which really helped a better flowing story, instead of a young girl with the face of a 40 year old, who wears cardigans, but no shoes...? I also appreciated the new vision- the film was totally on it's own, and not shot-for-shot. It was amazing, seeing the oppurtunity shots that the original had missed. There was also an appropriate taste, instead of a relatively lifeless, colourless movie, there's a shak-under-the-bridge feel. There were also really clever and intimate moments, instead of a boy and a girl on the jungle gym, there was close calls, and less peverted (that moment where Oskar see's Eli's 'bits' in the original). Abby is much more bearable to watch than Eli, visually and verbally, but there was a wisdom and a sense of age that Eli had, that 'Abby' hadn't, which was a little annoying, but bearable again in the sense of it's own originality. It was more appropriate, too, instead of a 140-year-old-woman-inside-a-girls-body looking after a taunted, bullied young lad. I'm tied between Oskar and Owen, although Owen spoke english, but Oskar was cuter and more innocent. Chemistry was there, but not the centre of the film like it's predessecor. The story also made far more sense, unlike the confusing Swedish take. Unlike Jocke's friend who some-how discovered how Eli was a vampire and where she lived, we follow Koteas throughout the film, thus, more

It's extremely bizarre-watching a Matt Reeves movie after watching years of 'Cloverfield'. It's also strange, watching my new favourite director, who directed my favourite movie, directing a remake to my favourite movie, which is now-gulp-my new favourite movie. It's like Reeves made this film especially for ME! What I LOVED about this movie was, the David Fincher esque style that this movie had, it's sense of originality, but it's awareness of a remake. (You can tell, because of it's relatively fast american pace.) You were also far more connected with the lead character Owen, and his fascination for Abby, which really helped a better flowing story, instead of a young girl with the face of a 40 year old, who wears cardigans, but no shoes...? I also appreciated the new vision- the film was totally on it's own, and not shot-for-shot. It was amazing, seeing the oppurtunity shots that the original had missed. There was also an appropriate taste, instead of a relatively lifeless, colourless movie, there's a shak-under-the-bridge feel. There were also really clever and intimate moments, instead of a boy and a girl on the jungle gym, there was close calls, and less peverted (that moment where Oskar see's Eli's 'bits' in the original). Abby is much more bearable to watch than Eli, visually and verbally, but there was a wisdom and a sense of age that Eli had, that 'Abby' hadn't, which was a little annoying, but bearable again in the sense of it's own originality. It was more appropriate, too, instead of a 140-year-old-woman-inside-a-girls-body looking after a taunted, bullied young lad. I'm tied between Oskar and Owen, although Owen spoke english, but Oskar was cuter and more innocent. Chemistry was there, but not the centre of the film like it's predessecor. The story also made far more sense, unlike the confusing Swedish take. Unlike Jocke's friend who some-how discovered how Eli was a vampire and where she lived, we follow Koteas throughout the film, thus, more

A darker version of it's Swedish original, Let Me In is still beautiful, well-crafted, ambitious, and disturbing. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but the dynamic artistic style and the brillant performances makes this a rare remake that is just as captivating as the original.

Let Me In is not a good remake at all. As a fan of the Swedish version I did think this was going to be pointless but thought, because of a few good reviews, I would give it a go. It flows badly and is not emotional in any way like the Swedish version is. The atmosphere is pretty limp and the CGI is awful. Both mains are ok and suit the roles but somehow fail to convince. Not the worst film in the world but is just below average and fails to pull you in like the excellent Swedish version.

This has to go down as one of the most pointless remakes ever made. It was just FAR to similar to the wonderful 2008 Swedish original and did NOT offer anything new at all. Most of the supporting characters are forgettable, the use of CGI was poor and the scene where Abby kisses Owen was SO weak compared to the one between Eli and Oskar (their kiss is one of my favourite on-screen kisses). Had Matt Reeves used some of the scenes from the novel that didn't made it into the Swedish original, I'm sure it would have stand out. I was actually overjoyed that the remake bombed at the box-office. Avoid this remake and watch the Swedish original instead. And you'll be thankful that you do!